Calling all Spruance-class DD fans

[jpdyno2]

I haven't seen that photo. But I'd sure like to. I can't believe I didn't have one in my rolls of pictures.

if you can dig it out, please post it or PM me.

John

[George W]

John

This is the USS Moosbrugger antler picture. The date I have is Aug 4, 1984 and it was taken in Halifax. When I released this the first time it was said by someone on the forum that the antlers were acquired in Halifax. I photographed the ship again in 2000 but it did not have the antlers.

It was originally scanned in 2006 and today I had to crop and re-size it to fit the size limits here. I hope this works for you and any one else who may wish to use it. I do not know if anyone actually built a model including the antlers in 2006.

Best wishes
George

[jpdyno2]

Thank you so much. This is perfect

when I get her done I'll post pics of her.

[Michael Potter]

The ship's annual history submissions from USS Moosbrugger describe the crew's friendship with the Moosehead brewery in Halifax, including reciprocated tours and a softball match.

[jpdyno2]

According to this article, the antlers date from at least 1986.

I know they were there when I sailed on her in 1992.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-0 ... horns-rack

[jpdyno2]

What do ya'll think. the GMM PE set or the WEM set? or possibly the Flyhawk set.

I'm leaning GMM.

[Cliffy B]

If you're building her in 1/350 then by all means go with the WEM set! It has parts you never even knew existed on the real ship its so thorough. If 1/700 then the GMM set covers all very well. I have a few sheets of Flyhawk's "Modern Weapons" and "Modern Radars" for supplementary pieces and I'm not finding myself wanting anything extra. List any specific sets you are considering buying and I, and others, can give you a more detailed review.

[jpdyno2]

I'm debating between WEM 35051, (their Spruance set) and the GMM Modern US Warship set.

I'm building her in 1/350. I'm using the Dragon Arthur Radford kit, but one of my biggest issues is the completely wrong doors all over it. None of them are even close in appearance, so I will be sanding them all off and putting on PE ones. The GMM kit comes with plenty of doors whereas the WEM kit only has a couple.

[Cliffy B]

If its 1/350 then I'd say go with the WEM set and get a supplementary door set then. GMM makes a door only set in a bunch of scales and are fairly cheap.

There you go and only $7!
http://www.goldmm.com/ships/gmsavari.htm

The GMM Modern set has a bunch of useful parts but you'll also be getting parts for other ships too. IF you can afford it I'd get both and then you can pick and chose what looks best to you. The WEM set is class specific and has a lot of extra little details that you may or may not want to use while the GMM set is more general. I have both and can send you some photos of them if you'd like.

[jpdyno2]

I was looking at ordering more doors from GMM anyway, so I'll go with your recommendation then for WEM

thanks
John

[jpdyno2]

Does anyone make a good set of brass props for the Spruance/Tico class?

[jpdyno2]

I'm also looking for a good shot inside a Spruance class hangar bay. preferably without the helo

[GTDEATH13]

Does anyone make a good set of brass props for the Spruance/Tico class?

The Spruance class had different propellers compared to the Ticos... I could use some myself....

[GTDEATH13]

I'm also looking for a good shot inside a Spruance class hangar bay. preferably without the helo

Here is a decent pic:
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=43658&start=340

[Charles Landrum]

What reference do you have that there was a size difference between the propellers of the Spruance and the Ticonderoga classes? I served on Hayler and Kidd and know of no difference. The main propulsion plants were essentially identical, between the Ticos, Spruances and Kidd Class including propellers. What differed in the classes were the auxiliary systems and regulating system for the gas turbine generators. The Kidd Class and USS Hayler even had the auxiliary systems of the Tico Class.

Regards

[Seasick]

Actually they an ECM device made to look like antlers.

[GTDEATH13]

What reference do you have that there was a size difference between the propellers of the Spruance and the Ticonderoga classes? I served on Hayler and Kidd and know of no difference. The main propulsion plants were essentially identical, between the Ticos, Spruances and Kidd Class including propellers. What differed in the classes were the auxiliary systems and regulating system for the gas turbine generators. The Kidd Class and USS Hayler even had the auxiliary systems of the Tico Class.

Regards

I was looking at NSTM ch. 245 (propellers) when I noticed that the Ticos had different maintenance manuals for their props from the Spruance and Kidd class. I was able to find the characteristics of the Spruance and Kidd class propellers:
Number of blades 5
Propeller diameter 17.0 ft
Propeller pitch at 0.7 radius 26.2 ft
Pitch ratio at 0.7 radius 1.54
Expanded area 165.70 ft2
Disc area 226.98 ft2
Projected area 134.1 ft2
Material Ni-AL-Bz
Manufacturer Bird-Johnson Co.

I will try to find the characteristics of the Ticonderoga class propellers and post them here. I found that they are of the same diameter but I cannot find if their geometry is the same.

Here is a link with a short discription of the machinery plants: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/navy/do ... 8-101.html

[jpdyno2]

The Tico's and the Spruances are essentially identical from the main deck down. Also both classes use the same GE LM2500 Turbofan engines and the same reduction gear and shaft. It wouldn't make sense to have a different propeller design.

[jpdyno2]

somewhere on this site or forum I saw a kit that had metal Exhaust stacks for the Spruance. now I can't find it. Does anyone know of these?

[Timmy C]

Yes - Dragon's 1/350 Cushing: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html